Few commercial icons deserve to be called "cultural touchstones" of significant political and social change. But the Aunt Jemima trademark is one of them.

The image of the smiling black woman first appeared on thousands of boxes of pancake mix in the early 1890s, but throughout the 20th century, Aunt Jemima's trademark mirrored America's changing perceptions of African-American women.

The idea of Aunt Jemima was first conceived by newspaperman and entrepreneur Chris Rutt, according to the Afro-American Almanac. Mr. Rutt and his partner, Charles Underwood, had developed and packaged a ready-mixed, self-rising pancake flour but they had not settled on a name or brand positioning.

One evening Mr. Rutt attended a vaudeville show and heard a tune called "Aunt Jemima" sung by a black-faced performer clad in an apron and bandana headband. The melody was such a hit, Rutt decided to use the song's title as the name for his pancake mix.

When Rutt and Underwood later sold the business to Davis Milling, the company hired Nancy Green, a 59-year-old former slave, to serve as the living trademark for the mix. The image of Aunt Jemina, however, is an artist's rendering and has appeared on Aunt Jemima products -- now marketed by successor Quaker Oats Co. -- ever since.

Beginning in the 1950s, the Aunt Jemima logo started coming under criticism that its image of a black "Mammy" in a kerchief was an outdated and negative portrayal of African-American women. During the 1950s and '60s the trademark was gradually modernized, with the most recent changes being made in 1989.

Today, Aunt Jemima's face beams from beneath a full head of dark hair -- sans kerchief -- but her sparkling eyes and warm smile remain the same."

http://www.hollyeats.com/ChinksSteaks.htmThe same thing happened here in Philly to a place called Chink's Steaks named in the 1940's for the owners nickname. The Asian-American community never raised a fuss (apparantly they have better things to do with their time), but the liberal activist groups started protesting about a year ago. Last I heard the owners were sticking to their name and told the liberal hypocrites to go to hell.

Once again I am stymied by the apparent need of some folks to do the name calling thing. Please, I'm begging you, explain to me why you assume the protesters are liberal (for that matter, just what does the term "liberal" mean to you? Have you actually looked up the word "liberal" in a dictionary? An objectively written political glossary? Maybe these people who you call "liberal" are something else entirely. In fact. while you're at it, look up the word "conservative". You might be surprised about your own political leanings. To quote that great Libertarian, Bill Maher, "I would love to support the Conservatives, if only they would be.") and, what exactly is hypocritical about their actions.

http://www.hollyeats.com/ChinksSteaks.htmThe same thing happened here in Philly to a place called Chink's Steaks named in the 1940's for the owners nickname. The Asian-American community never raised a fuss (apparantly they have better things to do with their time), but the liberal activist groups started protesting about a year ago. Last I heard the owners were sticking to their name and told the liberal hypocrites to go to hell.

Once again I am stymied by the apparent need of some folks to do the name calling thing. Please, I'm begging you, explain to me why you assume the protesters are liberal (for that matter, just what does the term "liberal" mean to you? Have you actually looked up the word "liberal" in a dictionary? An objectively written political glossary? Maybe these people who you call "liberal" are something else entirely. In fact. while you're at it, look up the word "conservative". You might be surprised about your own political leanings. To quote that great Libertarian, Bill Maher, "I would love to support the Conservatives, if only they would be.") and, what exactly is hypocritical about their actions.

I understand what you're saying BT about assumptions. Of which, I too, have been trying to expell people from using. However, let's be clear about the dictionary. There is a difference between one who is liberal, and a Liberal. There is also a difference between one who is conservative and a Conservative. Not the same definition.

Be sure to use the dictionary correctly when finding information. The capital letter is key as to the meaning of the word. Don't confuse liberal with a Liberal (n) or conservative with a Conservative (n).

Nuke the unborn gay whales and piss off a whole bunch of folks. March on Madison, Wisconsin in favor of stronger coffee, march on Charleston, SC in favor of smaller shrimp and march in Houston, Texas in favor of beans in your chili....who cares?

Originally posted by ScorereaderI understand what you're saying BT about assumptions. Of which, I too, have been trying to expell people from using. However, let's be clear about the dictionary. There is a difference between one who is liberal, and a Liberal. There is also a difference between one who is conservative and a Conservative. Not the same definition.

Be sure to use the dictionary correctly when finding information. The capital letter is key as to the meaning of the word. Don't confuse liberal with a Liberal (n) or conservative with a Conservative (n).

You're absolutely right Scorereader. The problem with conservatives (note the lower case) is that they seem to lack the ability to make that distinction. In fact, by blurring the distinction and lumping them all together, it would appear to serve their overall purpose of vilifying both liberals and Liberals.

There is a simple solution: find better, more distinctive and accurate labels.

The great Chicago journalist, Mike Royko, coined the term "goo-goos", sort of a twisted, slangy interpretation of "do-gooder" when speaking of liberals (note the lower case).

Current etymological trends among Liberal and middle of the road pundits have led us to the term "neo-con chicken hawks" when referring to conservatives.

If I may offer an opinion here, the difference, in both instances, between the upper and lower case interpretations of these political ideologies is that the upper case version is based on thoughtful reason, careful consideration of facts, and the realization that nobody benefits from an absolute unbending hardline view. The lower case interpretation on the other hand is based on a knee-jerk reaction to the everyday realities presented by an ever-changing, sometimes scary world.

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure what a "trolling question" is. I asked the question because I was actually hoping someone could explain it to me. I'm obviously not as politically savvy as others on this forum. Perhaps there should be a test of some kind to weed out rubes like me. It was mighty kind of you to enlighten this poor, dumb Alaskan with your suggestions. I should have known I was way out of my league.

well Scott as predicted here they come.............. break out the old rubber boots it's going to get a little putrid in here and you'll soon be up to your butt in Liberal crap.............. Our job here is done Scott lets move on. Making fun of Liberals is fine but to drag these poor mentally ill folks through the mud by associating them with intelligent thought is no longer fun...... these are truly sick people.

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure what a "trolling question" is. I asked the question because I was actually hoping someone could explain it to me. I'm obviously not as politically savvy as others on this forum. Perhaps there should be a test of some kind to weed out rubes like me. It was mighty kind of you to enlighten this poor, dumb Alaskan with your suggestions. I should have known I was way out of my league.

A trolling question can best be described as a question intended to elicit angry, emotional, even enraged responses from people on an online board.

Sambo is a term that has been used to denigrate African- Americans. I would dislike a restaurant called Kike's Place, there was a restaurant here in Portland called Coon's Chicken and I can't imagine a place with the N-word in the title. The Sambo story is not the problem, the usage history of the word Sambo is. Call the restaurant another name that does not have a history of being a racial slur.

I graduated high school in 1965. I am an enrolled tribal member of the Bad River Band Of The Lake Superior Chippewa tribe. My high school was Milwaukee's Custer. Our sports teams were knick-named the "Indians" and our logo was a Plains Indian with a full headress. I never felt anyone was honoring me, but in those days one didn't complain. Later the name came under attack and some school board member claimed the school wasn't named after the famous murderer of Native elders and infants but some obscure someone who we never heard of before (or since ). Nonetheless the knick-name was changed and the howling from some former alums about caving in to political correctness and losing their "heritage" (the Custer Indians? please spare me) was pathetic. I seem to hear some of these arguments used today vis-a-vis Confederate flags and now Sambo's. Grow up folks, it's the 21st century and time to move on past ignorant embracing of names whose time has thankfully left.

Frank, I thought better of you up to this moment. Good healthy political disagreement, when it is based on fact, reason, and ethics, is an important part of our American heritage. My point here with Scott's ramblings (and I'll continue my critique in a fresh post) is that they contain none of the above.

Your most recent post is a low, name calling cop-out. I certainly acknowledge that there is more than one valid opinion around here (neo-cons call it wishy-washy). So let's hear yours in a thoughtful, well reasoned argument.

Just to give you a little idea of who you're dealing with, my political leanings tend to drift toward both the Liberal and the Libertarian point of view. Yes, people should be responsible for their own actions and decisions. But that assumes that everyone lives their lives in a moral, ethical, and just fashion, with no one taking unfair advantage of any other individual or group. As that is not the case, we need some level of government intervention to make sure that the lowest among us are protected and in some cases provided for.

Believe it or not I support the second amendment with just as much zeal as I do the first. The difference between me and the NRA is that I support ALL the words in the second amendment, not just the ones that make my case.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As I understand it, the NRA defines "militia" as every man, woman and child who is a citizen of the United States. You know what, I'll give 'em that. No argument. BUT-let's focus on the two words before that, "well-regulated". Well, let's see, I got me a Funk & Wagnalls (no, really) dictionary right here..."regulate, transitive verb, 1.To direct, manage, or control according to certain rules, principles, etc. 2.To adjust according to a standard, degree, etc."

So, a "well-regulated militia" is one that is subject to the management and control of the individual state (the second amendment only prohibits the federal government from sticking their noses into things) based on that state's rules and principles which can be adjusted to meet the needs and requirements of that state based on current standards or degrees. In other words, gun ownership never has been and never should be a free for all.

I also support the rebuilding in Iraq. We went in there, we made a mess, and now it is our moral responsiblity to clean it up. We've established this precedent in almost every conflict since the Civil War. That being said, I also believe that it was George Bush's unstated intent, in an effort to avenge his daddy's attempted murder by Saddam Hussein, to invade Iraq starting back before the 2000 presidential campaign. While I am not ignorant enough or callous enough to suggest that Mr. Bush brought the 9/11 attacks upon us, I would posit that he used that horrible criminal act to propel his own nation building agenda. Had 9/11 not occurred, he would have looked for any opportunity, any motivation for deposing Saddam Hussein. As such, this administration has conducted itself more shamefully, more criminally than any of Bill Clinton's extra-marital dalliances.

My point here is that while I call myself a Liberal, my attitudes and political beliefs are far more complex than the stereotypical characterization that neo-cons love to bandy about. If you're so smart and I'm so wrong, then convince me. I'm an open minded individual capable of seeing more than one point of view when it is intelligently and carefully laid out. If you want to have a political debate in the "Off Topic" forum (if the moderators will kindly allow it), then let's have one. A debate, I mean. Not some cheap shot, name calling barbs that prove nothing and accomplish less.

The NRA doesn't define militia, the US Code does. I can't quote verbatim from memory, but generally the militia is defined as all able bodied males aged 17 to 54(ish), and women who are members of the National Guard. A lot of gun control advocates take the position that the well regulated militia portion of the 2nd amendment refers to the National Guard. This is obviously not the case given the inclusion in the militia only of female guard members. In terms of being well regulated, I served for several years in the NG after 4 years of active duty, during which time I spend several months training guard troops. I know that many guard units have improved significantly, and served valiantly, given increased deployments and training opportunities, but during my service (87-95), well regulated was not a term I would have used to describe the organizations that I was familiar with.

My response was not an angry one. It was a response to what I consider a naive question regarding what is now called "C/conservativism." Some Democrats, leftists and Liberals use sentences like that to try to show some sort of hypocracy in the Republican view point regarding moral issues and fiscal issues.

I assumed unalaskawoman was either flaming the fire by asking a question that has been "asked" many times before, or if she didn't know the answer, then I told her to contact either of her Senators for the answer about the Republican viewpoint. I'm sure their staffers would be more than happy to send you literature on the subject.

We can all piss at each other. Or, we can talk about food.

I prefer to talk about food and direct those who don't understand the complexity of party issues to the correct source. I'd have answered the same way if someone was questioning why a "liberal" would want so much government involvement in some social issues, but not in others. There's an answer to both questions, that would require a back history that's too long for this food forum.

I could easily give my opinion on the matter, but why do that when one can get all the free literature on the subject one could ever want straight from the ones you are questioning.

First off we're in total agreement about the food issue. Much more enjoyable and less confrontational (sometimes not) to discuss food here. On the other hand this is the Off-Topic forum so, anything goes.

Please recognize that in a print medium we lack the nuance of inflection that one has when communicating with someone orally. I don't doubt that the intent of your post was not based in anger. However, that is the way unalaskawoman perceived it. My intent, based on my impressions of her posts, was to smooth the waters and avoid losing a new member who, in my opinion, was not trying to make trouble but, was asking what was, in her mind, a legitimate question.

As for the question itself, I agree it was awkwardly worded so that it might be construed as a flame. Frankly, I think the best way to address any hot button issue is to carefully consider what you want to say and make your statement. Have facts and logic at the ready, put them into a cohesive form and let fly. As I said in one of my responses to fpczyz, "If you're so smart and I'm so wrong, convince me. I'm an open minded individual capable of seeing more than one point of view when it is intelligently and carefully laid out."

Anyway, like you I'm tired of talking about this. Let's get back to the food. In fact, how about coming to Chicago for the Great Italian Beef Tour we're currently putting together. Look for updates here in the Off-Topic forum. We're meeting Sunday to discuss details.

I should clarify, my post is in response to Scorereader, but (once again, showing my ignorance) I didn't know how to do the quote thing.

Hi Unalaskawoman,

You may have already learned, but here is how I do it...

When you want to respond with a quote, click on the icon that looks like a sheet of paper with a little curved arrow.

In the message box, select the text you DON'T want to quote (click to place the cursor or insertion point at the beginning and drag to the end, release the mouse button) and press your delete key. I usually leave all the stuff inside the formatting parentheses but especially the (quote) at the start of the quote and the (quote) at the end of the quote.

Type your response by clicking after the last (quote). When done with your message, click PREVIEW. If you're happy with what you see, click POST NEW REPLY. If you wish to be notified when someone responds to the topic, check the CHECK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THIS TOPIC. You only need to subscribe once per topic no matter how many times you may respond in the future.

I hope this helps and is correct. I use a Mac so I'm not sure if what I see on my screen is what others see.

As I understand it, the NRA defines "militia" as every man, woman and child who is a citizen of the United States. You know what, I'll give 'em that. No argument. BUT-let's focus on the two words before that, "well-regulated". Well, let's see, I got me a Funk & Wagnalls (no, really) dictionary right here..."regulate, transitive verb, 1.To direct, manage, or control according to certain rules, principles, etc. 2.To adjust according to a standard, degree, etc."

So, a "well-regulated militia" is one that is subject to the management and control of the individual state (the second amendment only prohibits the federal government from sticking their noses into things) based on that state's rules and principles which can be adjusted to meet the needs and requirements of that state based on current standards or degrees. In other words, gun ownership never has been and never should be a free for all.

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but you understand it incorrectly. First of all, the NRA does not define it at all. The NRA supports it.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Second, it is clear that you do not understand the words "well-regulated" as they were used prior to, at the time of, and for many years after the amendment was written. From the OED:

1709 -- "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy indications."

1714 -- "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812 -- "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848 -- "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862 -- "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clanndestine proceeding."

1894 -- "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Well-regulated, as it was used at the time of the writing of the Consitution, and for one hundred years after, referred to something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly and/or functioned as expected.

Now, with this in mind, you have my permission to further your education and realize just exactly how far off you are on this matter.

Well Michael, I cannot thank you enough for your kind permission to add to my education. I think I will reserve judgement as to just who is far off on this matter as of now. Because I abhor knee-jerk reactions, even to condescending remarks like yours, I will do diligent research into the matter (forgive me if I don't blindly take your word) and respond in time.

Until then, have another glass of Lynchburg "water" and take some target practice at the range.

Well Michael, I cannot thank you enough for your kind permission to add to my education. I think I will reserve judgement as to just who is far off on this matter as of now. Because I abhor knee-jerk reactions, even to condescending remarks like yours, I will do diligent research into the matter (forgive me if I don't blindly take your word) and respond in time.

Until then, have another glass of Lynchburg "water" and take some target practice at the range.

Buddy

I have heard there are some idiots who would do as you suggest. I, however, am among the many millions of people who do not partake of adult beverages before or during any periods of time around firearms.

If it doesn't sell food, then it's a bad idea to use it, regardless of any connotations. You wouldn't call your restaurant "The Salmonella Inn". Or "The Lynching Pad". Or "The KKKafe". "Uncle Tom's" might be a bad choice, and so might "Son of Sam's", "Charlie Manson's", or "BTK's BLTs".

You pretty much want a name that you think the largest number of people would be happy to come to, and also that would not ignite anger in ANY part of your potential clientele.

Deal with the reality of it, not the theory. You can say whatever you want about what people should or shouldn't do or think, but they're gonna do what they're gonna do, and if you call your restaurant chain "Sambo's" they're gonna stay away and picket it.

ex-CUSE me Mr.(?) Mosca but can't you see we're in the middle of a discussion about the second amendment?!? Who do yo think you are coming in here trying to get the thread back on topic? Yeesh, some people...

XXOO,

Buddy

p.s. M.H., I was awake for most of the night formulating a response. I know, you probably don't care. That's okay. Sadly I am going out of town on business for a couple days and will be without benefit of internet till late Friday night. Check back after that; it'll be a corker.

ex-CUSE me Mr.(?) Mosca but can't you see we're in the middle of a discussion about the second amendment?!? Who do yo think you are coming in here trying to get the thread back on topic? Yeesh, some people...

XXOO,

Buddy

p.s. M.H., I was awake for most of the night formulating a response. I know, you probably don't care. That's okay. Sadly I am going out of town on business for a couple days and will be without benefit of internet till late Friday night. Check back after that; it'll be a corker.

First off we're in total agreement about the food issue. Much more enjoyable and less confrontational (sometimes not) to discuss food here. On the other hand this is the Off-Topic forum so, anything goes.

Please recognize that in a print medium we lack the nuance of inflection that one has when communicating with someone orally. I don't doubt that the intent of your post was not based in anger. However, that is the way unalaskawoman perceived it. My intent, based on my impressions of her posts, was to smooth the waters and avoid losing a new member who, in my opinion, was not trying to make trouble but, was asking what was, in her mind, a legitimate question.

As for the question itself, I agree it was awkwardly worded so that it might be construed as a flame. Frankly, I think the best way to address any hot button issue is to carefully consider what you want to say and make your statement. Have facts and logic at the ready, put them into a cohesive form and let fly. As I said in one of my responses to fpczyz, "If you're so smart and I'm so wrong, convince me. I'm an open minded individual capable of seeing more than one point of view when it is intelligently and carefully laid out."

Anyway, like you I'm tired of talking about this. Let's get back to the food. In fact, how about coming to Chicago for the Great Italian Beef Tour we're currently putting together. Look for updates here in the Off-Topic forum. We're meeting Sunday to discuss details.